Readarounds in Child and Youth Care

Bullies and victims

Astrid Mona O'Moore

Lowenstein (1978) was one
of the earliest investigators in England to attempt a 'micro-analysis'
of the bully. He noted that the identification of bullies was not always
unanimous. Teachers did not always agree on who were the bullies,
indicating that bullying was on a continuum with normal aggressive or
domineering behaviour. Teachers themselves viewed bullying differently,
due to their own orientation and experience with particular children.
Lowenstein (1978) therefore applied strict criteria before selecting
bullying children for closer examination. Thus the study merits some
attention. Lowenstein found that the bullies in his study were more
likely to be hyperactive and disruptive in class, and had higher
neuroticism scores than their controls. Moreover, they had lower IQ's
and were below average in reading achievement. Lowenstein also found
that bullying children of either sex were more likely to have parents
who had marital problems and conflicts at home; been bullies themselves;
had a poor approach to rearing children, i.e. inconsistent, overstrict
and over permissive and who had a lack of values relating to sensitivity
to other people.

In a later study of thirty-two victims of bullying, (strict criteria
having once again been applied) Lowenstein (1978a) found bullied children
also had distinct physical characteristics and personality traits which
distinguished them from the non-bullied child. Social and background
features appeared to influence the possibility of being bullied.Social
skills and the capacity to communicate, to be popular and show interest in
others were likely to mitigate against being bullied. Moreover, children
were less likely to be bullied if they were physically robust, extroverted,
socially sensitive, unselfish, flexible, conforming to group norms,
rewarding, unaggressive, non-attention seeking and modest.

Lowenstein's findings in respect of the victims were very similar to the
Scandinavian and Finnish results, i.e. the victim is insecure in his social
relations and is physically weak (O'Moore, 1988). Lowenstein, did not,
however, distinguish between the provocative and the passive victim as did
Olweus (1978). If this distinction is ignored it might so easily cloud
results. Lowenstein, for example, found his controls to be less aggressive
than the victims, a finding which is in the opposite direction of what one
would expect of the passive victim. Indeed Stephenson and Smith's (1987)
data of primary school children clearly distinguishes the passive victim
from the provocative victim. Whereas the majority of their victims, as in
the Scandinavian literature, were passive, weak and ineffective individuals,
the provocative victims were rated as more active, assertive, confident and
physically stronger than other victims. They were not only easily provoked
but they also provoked other children. Whereas most victims actively avoid
aggressive situations, these children were found to actively seek these out.
In addition a large number of these children frequently complained to their
teachers that they were being bullied.

Stephenson and Smith believe that because these children actively provoke
the bullying to which they are subjected they are a particularly vulnerable
and problematic group.Equally worrying were the small number of anxious
bullies. Whereas they found the majority of bullies shared the
characteristics of the Scandinavian bullies, i.e. confident, assertive,
physically strong, reasonably popular, the anxious bullies were rated as
lacking in self-confidence. In fact, they were found to be the least
confident of all the groups. More of these children were reported to have
problems at home and they were less popular with their classmates than other
bullies. Their teacher described them as having fewer likeable qualities
than the other groups and they also had the poorest school attainments and
poorest concentration of all the groups.